The Singapore High Court recently issued the first-ever super-priority order for debts arising from rescue financing under Section 211E(1)(b) of the amended insolvency laws in the Companies Act. The decision shows that the court is open to adopting relatively unique deal structures, and could be a benefit for more business-centric solutions.

In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.

Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?

If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.

Practically all commercial transactions, including licenses, services agreements, and supply agreements, contain a provision that triggers termination rights, without notice, to a party whenever the other party files for bankruptcy or experiences other insolvency-related event. In Part 1 of a two-part series, we discuss how the commonly used termination-on-insolvency clauses are generally unenforceable despite their widespread use.

Standard Ipso Facto Provision

In a recent application for directions from the High Court, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (the “ODCE”) brought a motion to compel a liquidator contest an appeal by directors of a restriction order made against them in the High Court.

Section 683 of the Companies Act 2014 (“CA14”) requires the liquidator of an insolvent company to apply for an Order restricting the directors. It does not require liquidator to contest an appeal by directors. The ODCE ultimately withdrew the application and paid costs, but the application raises concerns for all liquidators.

The sale of gift vouchers and their terms and conditions is largely unregulated in Ireland.

Although there is no specific legislation, gift vouchers provided to consumers are subject to the provisions of general consumer protection legislation, such as the Consumer Protection Act 2007.

Gift vouchers that cover a wide range of traders and retailers such as the “All4One” vouchers come within the definition of “electronic money” in the European Communities (Electronic Money) Regulations 2011 are subject to the provisions of those Regulations.

Coast Stores, the occasional wear retailer and high street stallworth has gone into administration in the UK.

Coast’s sister brand Karen Millen had partially rescued the company, buying its department store concessions arm, website, safe guarding up to 600 jobs. However, as part of a pre pack administration deal, it will not be maintaining Coasts overseas stores or its UK high-street stores.

Kiely Rowan plc the company which owns the business of Irish designer Orla Kiely went into liquidation last week. The retailer closed its online shop as well as one in Kildare Village and two in London. This is very sad for the employees and customers of Orla Kiely as well as her creditors.

However, what does it mean when one hears that a company has gone into liquidation?

House of Fraser, the struggling UK department store has gone into administration but is to be acquired by billionaire Mike Ashley, the owner of Sports Direct. There are regulatory difficulties with his acquisition of the Dundrum branch at the moment, but it is anticipated that the entire group including Dundrum will be fully operational in good time to capitalise on the Christmas market.

However, what does this mean for customers with unused gift cards?

In retail bankruptcies, it is important for suppliers consigning goods to merchants to be aware of the commercial law rules governing consignments. Disputes among consignors, inventory lenders, and bankruptcy debtors have been arising frequently in retail bankruptcy cases. Disputes like these can be avoided if consignors consider the basics of commercial law rules governing consignments, particularly under the Uniform Commercial Code, and take steps to protect their rights and interests.

A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.

Background